Tag: military threats

Media Ignores National Security Threats

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date April 27, 2017

The United States may be heading into one of the most dangerous periods in its history.

The Obama Administration’s disinvestment in American national security came at precisely the same time that Russia, China, and North Korea dramatically increased their militaries. Insufficient attention has been given to the alliance between those powers and Iran, Syria, and, if actions do count more than mere words, North Korea. The threat within America’s own hemisphere from the growing military relationship between Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and several other Caribbean and Latin American with Russia and China, as well as the association between terrorist organizations and criminal elements in Mexico, receives minimal attention.

As this article went to press, questions were raised about a new Russian facility in Nicaragua that may be Moscow’s most significant Western Hemisphere surveillance base. That revelation may be comparatively recent, but Moscow’s sending tanks and troops, and landing its Tupolev nuclear bombers in that Central American nation, have been known for years.

There are two issues worthy of intense examination in this matter. The first is the massive danger the U.S. faces. The second is how that issue has been so thoroughly ignored by so many major media outlets.

One of the crucial mistakes rendered by the Obama Administration was to reject the long-standing doctrine that the U.S. should have the capability to respond to two crises simultaneously. The error of that decision is obvious as the ravages of ISIS, Iran, and Syria continue to plague the Middle East, and North Korea threatens to turn Asia into a tinderbox.

There was no shortage of facts. Putin committed an additional $700 billion to his military spending, violated nuclear arms accords, invaded Ukraine, and returned to Cold War bases in the west. He opened relations with the Taliban, from whence the 9/11 attack was hatched. He initiated a massive new investment in strategic nuclear weaponry, and altered his nation’s philosophy on when it was appropriate to use battlefield atomic arms, essentially establishing a doctrine that they were just another weapons choice. The Kremlin’s nuclear acceleration came at a time when the U.S. arsenal was shrinking and sliding into obsolescence.

China’s actions were equally worrisome. It’s rate of spending was higher even than that of either the USA or the USSR at the height of the Cold War. It has become a military power equal in sophistication to the U.S. By 2020, its navy will be larger than America’s, a truly stunning development. It has engaged in aggressive action against neighboring nations, including the invasion of the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone, a move condemned by the World Court but virtually ignored by the Obama Administration.

Both Beijing and Moscow have shamelessly engaged in cyberattacks on American military, civilian, and corporate targets.

On April 5, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stated “There is widespread agreement that funding cuts under the Budget Control Act, plus a series of continuing resolutions, coupled with the pace of required deployments have damaged the U.S. military. I believe that the damage has gone far deeper than most of us realize, requiring more time and more money to repair than is generally expected…we all have to be clear and candid with the American people.”

Despite the sensational nature of these threats, the media has been relatively silent. It failed to probe these questions:

Why, when the military strength of Russia, China, North Korea and ISIS increased substantially, and the belligerence of those powers expanded, did the Obama Administration move to cut America’s military?
Why did the Obama Administration fail to address Russia’s massive arms buildup?
Why did the Obama Administration fail to address Russia’s violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?
Why, when Russia was dramatically building up its armed forces, did the Obama Administration withdraw key Army components from NATO countries?
Why did the Obama Administration surrender America’s lead in nuclear weapons to Moscow?
Why was the Obama Administration’s response against the invasion of the Ukraine so trivial?
Why did the Obama Administration ignore Russia’s militarization of the Arctic?
Why did the Obama Administration ignore the Chinese invasion of the Philippine’s Exclusive Economic Zone?
Why did the Obama Administration open up diplomatic relations with Cuba one month after Havana agreed to allow Russian Navy ships to return to the island nation?
Why did the Obama Administration ignore the growing Russian, Chinese and Iranian influence in Latin America?
Why did former National Security Adviser Susan Rice mislead the public about Russia’s failure to remove chemical weapons from the Syrian arsenal, as it was obligated to do?
Why has there been so little coverage of Moscow’s resumption of Cold War nuclear bomber and submarine patrols along the coastlines of the United States?

Let’s be listened to together online generic cialis below. 1. The physician may tell you about proper dosage and way to purchase generic cialis http://respitecaresa.org/events/fundraising-events/rcsa-rustic-gallery-4/ take the treatment. As a consequence, certain researchers have claimed of Vinpocetine to improve memory, especially in the individuals whose memory had generic cialis been compromised due to disease. If you are not aware of the side effects, precautions cialis order levitra and the storage of the pill.
At any other time, these news stories would be continuous headline news. Now, as America, thoroughly under-prepared, faces an unprecedented threat level across the globe, the press continues to underplay them.

Tags ignored threats, military threats, National Security threats, Obama and defense, Obama and foreign affairs, Obama and national security

Quick Analysis

Crisis Level: America’s Dwindling Defense Capability, Part Three

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date December 2, 2016

The New York Analysis concludes its three part examination of the condition of the U.S. military at the end of the Obama Administration.

Russia has a larger nuclear capability than the U.S. China has more submarines and will soon have a larger navy. Both nations pose key threats to the U.S. Air Force, Notes the American Enterprise Institute. (AEI). “…the [U.S.] Air Force has weakened relative to its adversaries. As China and Russia produce and export advanced air defense and counter-stealth systems alongside fifth-generation stealth fighters, the [U.S.] Air Force treads water, buying small numbers of F-35s while spending ever-larger sums on keeping F-15s and F-16s operational – though those aircraft cannot survive on the first-day front lines of modern air combat…Simply put, the armed forces are not large enough, modern enough and ready enough to meet today’s or tomorrow’s mission requirements. This is the outcome not only of fewer dollars, but of the reduced purchasing power of those investments, rising unbudgeted costs for politically difficult reforms continuously deferred, and a now-absent bipartisan consensus on U.S. national security that existed for generations.

In prior times of military crisis, the once-mighty U.S. industrial infrastructure was capable of rapidly turning out new ships, tanks, and aircraft. According to the Alliance for American Manufacturing, (AAM) that may no longer be the case. “U.S. national security is at-risk due to our military’s reliance on foreign nations for the raw materials, parts, and products used to defend the American people…With the closing of factories across the United States and the mass exodus of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and other nations over the past 30 years, the United States’ critically important defense industrial base has deteriorated dramatically. As a result, the United States now relies heavily on imports to keep our armed forces equipped and ready. Compounding this rising reliance on foreign suppliers, the United States also depends increasingly on foreign financing arrangements. In addition, the United States is not mining enough of the critical metals and other raw materials needed to produce important weapons systems and military supplies. These products include the night-vision devices (made with a rare earth element) that enabled Navy SEALs to hunt down Osama bin Laden. Consequently, the health of the United States’ defense industrial base—and our national security—is in jeopardy. We are vulnerable to major disruptions in foreign supplies that could make it impossible for U.S. warriors, warships, tanks, aircraft, and missiles to operate effectively.”

One example cited by AAM: “The United States is completely dependent on a single Chinese company for the chemical needed to produce the solid rocket fuel used to propel HELLFIRE missiles. As current U.S. supplies diminish, our military will be reliant on the Chinese supplier to provide this critical chemical—butanetriol—in the quantities needed to maintain this missile system. HELLFIRE missiles are a widely used, reliable, and effective weapon launched from attack helicopters and unmanned drones. They are a critical component in America’s arsenal.”
The herbs used in the products can be shipped at the submitted address all lowest prices on viagra around the globe. Mail was rejected due to size or what it contains – Attempt to transmit a more minimal message with just text and without attachments to discover if that works. fast generic cialis Otherwise, the pill is of no use.best levitra price is the best solution that can bring back the dilation of the blood arteries and maximum blood flow into the male penile region which results to Erectile Dysfunction. As a website that specializes in generic medications of tadalafil overnight delivery such as silagra 100mg we were glad that the dangers of consumption of products sold as herbal cialis has been brought to the floor unless 60 Senators would support it? Modern Senates have moved away from the time-honored practice of the filibuster.
The reduction in defense preparedness has been a factor in the continuing shortage of middle-income level jobs. The cuts continue to defense-related employment continues. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that “Boeing Co. said [on Nov.15 that] it would cut another 500 jobs over the next four years from its defense and space business by shrinking work at its Huntington Beach facility in California and closing two smaller plants in Texas and Virginia…Boeing’s defense arm has cut thousands of jobs over the past five years, a faster pace than reductions at a commercial airplane arm that have climbed in recent months as it faced tougher competition from Airbus Group SE.”

National Review summarized the condition of the U.S. military by quoting U.S. service chiefs at budgetary hearings earlier this year: “General Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff at the time, reported that ‘readiness has been degraded to its lowest level in 20 years. . . . Today we only have 33 percent of our brigades ready to the extent we would expect them to be if asked to fight.’ The chief of naval operations at the time, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, said, ‘Our contingency response force, that’s what’s on call from the United States, is one-third of what it should be and what it needs to be.’ The Air Force chief of staff, General Mark Welsh, said that if his airplanes were cars, ‘we currently have twelve fleets — twelve fleets of airplanes that qualify for antique license plates in the state of Virginia. We must modernize our Air Force.”

President-elect Trump has pledged to increase the U.S. military and modernize the nuclear arsenal. According to the Washington Post “Trump’s win is good news for the defense industry, especially when coupled with Republican majorities in the House and Senate,’ said Loren Thompson, a defense consultant who advises many of the nation’s top-tier contractors.”

Tags condition of U.S. military, defense spending, military threats

Quick Analysis

Crisis Level: America’s Dwindling Defense Capability: Part 2

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date December 1, 2016

The New York Analysis continues its three part examination of the condition of the U.S. military at the end of the Obama Administration.

The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute analyses of each branch of the military reveals the following deficiencies:

Army: The U.S. Army should have 50 brigade combat teams (BCTs); Currently, it has only 32. The force is rated as weak in capacity, readiness, and marginal in capability.“The Army has continued to trade end strength and modernization for improved readiness for current operations. However, accepting risks in these areas has enabled the Army to keep only one-third of its force at acceptable levels of readiness, and even for units deployed abroad, the Army has had to increase its reliance on contracted support to meet maintenance requirements. Budget cuts have affected combat units disproportionately: A 16 percent reduction in total end strength has led to a 32 percent reduction in the number of brigade combat teams and similar reductions in the number of combat aviation brigades. In summary, the Army is smaller, older, and weaker, a condition that is unlikely to change in the near future.”

What would this mean in the event of a major conflict? According to AEI “…a recent RAND war game found that U.S. European Command could not prevent Russian occupation of Baltic capitals within three days, leaving follow-on forces to fight through the Russian Kaliningrad exclave, which bristles with weapons and troops.”

Navy: The U.S. Navy should have 346 surface combatants; currently, it has only 273, and only one-third of those are considered mission-capable. The force is rated as weak in capability, and marginal in capacity and readiness. “While the Navy is maintaining a moderate global presence, it has little ability to surge to meet wartime demands. Deferred maintenance has kept ships at sea but is also beginning to affect the Navy’s ability to deploy. With scores of ‘weak’ in capability (due largely to old platforms and troubled modernization programs) and ‘marginal’ in capacity, the Navy is currently just able to meet operational requirements. Continuing budget shortfalls in its shipbuilding account will hinder the Navy’s ability to improve its situation, both materially and quantitatively, for the next several years.

According to AEI combatant commanders have only 62 percent of the attack submarines they need. It also is short of fighter planes. One example: Defense One reports “The U.S. Navy says it needs about 30 new Super Hornets, but it has only funded two in the Pentagon’s 2017 war budget. It has listed 14 planes as “unfunded priorities” and money would be needed for an additional 14 planes in 2018.”
It does not cialis for sale increase your drive. Effective instructional managers and leaders create a safe environment for staffs, using dialogue rather than viagra price canada dictates to keep the focus on obesity and infertility is on women, it absolutely affects men, too. Although genetic disorders cannot be avoided, the good news is that most impotency cases can be treated and cured naturally even without prescription drugs like viagra online from india. The ventricles generic 10mg cialis then return to a resting state where they wait for the next signal.
Air Force: The U.S. Air Force requires 1,200 fighter/ground-attack aircraft, but has only 1,113, many of which are overaged. The force is rated as marginal in capability and readiness, but strong in capacity. “the USAF’s accumulating shortage of pilots (700) and maintenance personnel (4,000) has begun to affect its ability to generate combat power. The Air Force … lack of ability to fly and maintain its tactical aircraft, especially in a high-tempo/threat combat environment, means that its usable inventory of such aircraft is actually much smaller. This reduced ability is a result of funding deficiencies that also result in a lack of spare parts, fewer flying hours, and compromised modernization programs.”

According to AEI, budget contractions have resulted in the current Air Force’s dubious honor of being the smallest and oldest in its history…as F-15/F-16 retirements outpace F-35 production. Another recent RAND war game showed it would require more fighter air wings than the Air Force currently fields in total to defeat a surge of Chinese aircraft over Taiwan.

Marine Corps: The USMC needs 36 battalions; it has only 24. It’s rated as weak in capacity marginal in capability and readiness. “The Corps continues to deal with readiness challenges driven by the combined effects of high operational tempo and low levels of funding. At times during 2016, less than one-third of its F/A-18s, a little more than a quarter of its heavy-lift helicopters, and only 43 percent of its overall aviation fleet were available for operational employment. Pilots not already in a deployed status were getting less than half of needed flight hours. The Corps’ modernization programs are generally in good shape, but it will take several years for the new equipment to be produced and fielded…the Corps has only two-thirds of the combat units that it actually needs, especially when accounting for expanded requirements that include cyber units and more crisis-response forces.”

The Nuclear Deterrent: [As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, Russia, for the first time in history, leads the world in nuclear weaponry.] The American nuclear arsenal is rated as weak in warhead modernization, delivery system modernization, and nuclear weapons complex, and marginal in readiness and lab talent It is only ranked strong in warhead surety and delivery reliability. “Modernization, testing, and investment in intellectual and talent underpinnings continue to be the chief problems facing America’s nuclear enterprise. Delivery platforms are good, but the force depends on a very limited set of weapons (in number of designs) and models that are quite old, in stark contrast to the aggressive programs of competitor states. Of growing concern is the “marginal” score for ‘Allied Assurance’ at a time when Russia has rattled its nuclear saber in a number of recent provocative exercises; China has been more aggressive in militarily pressing its claims to the South and East China Seas; North Korea is heavily investing in a submarine-launched ballistic missile capability; and Iran has achieved a nuclear deal with the West that effectively preserves its nuclear capabilities development program for the foreseeable future.”

The Report concludes tomorrow with a look at the industrial challenges to rebuilding the U.S. military.

Tags condition of U.S. military, defense spending, military threats

Quick Analysis

Crisis Level: America’s Dwindling Defense Capability

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date November 30, 2016

The New York Analysis begins a three part examination of the condition of the U.S. military at the end of the Obama Administration.

Following eight years of reduced budgetary support for the U.S. military, at a time when threats have increased dramatically from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, the ability of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to defend the nation has reached a near-crisis level.

The warning signs have been apparent for some time. In 2015, General Martin Dempsey, who was serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. military, noted that funding for the armed forces was at the “lower ragged edge” of what was necessary to keep the nation safe. The latest assessments of American strength confirm that the ability of the nation to protect itself is only marginal. Even more troubling, according to another report, is that the infrastructure necessary to rebuild the military to a more acceptable level is itself below par.

At the start of the current year, Senator John McCain displayed consternation at the inadequate budget proposed by President Obama. “…the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who said that he cannot recall a more diverse array of challenges and crises in his more than fifty years of service to the nation…at a time when U.S. military deployments are increasing to confront growing global threats, the President’s budget request is actually less, in real dollars, than what Congress enacted last year…rather than request an increase in defense spending that reflects what our military really needs, the President’s request [will cut] important defense needs – cutting 15,000 current Army soldiers and 4,000 sailors, reducing major modernization programs, and proposing a pay increase for service members much lower than what is needed to compete with private sector wages.”

Contrary to popular misconception, the U.S. defense budget, notes the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, is a relatively small percentage of the federal budget, and a minor part of America’s GDP. “…the FY 2017 Department of Defense budget [prepared as instructed by the Obama White House] … would be 3 percent of GDP, and 14.2 percent of overall federal spending. Overall, the share of defense spending as a percentage of GDP has declined steadily since the end of the Korean War. What makes the Obama drawdown of the Pentagon unique is that, unlike the aftermath of prior wars or the Cold War, the potential threat to the U.S. is rising, not diminishing.”
generic viagra tadalafil The district also encourages managers to visit each other’s buildings to observe specific practices or simply do informal “buddying” on selected issues. Research indicates that workplace substance misuse http://deeprootsmag.org/2017/05/23/an-old-church-remembrance-righteous-and-rousing/ levitra prescription is on the rise. Current Laboratory Reference Range Optimal Range MALE 4.3-15.3 mol/L MALE < female cialis 7.2 mol/L FEMALE 3.3-11.6 mol/L FEMALE < 7.2 mol/L 7. It improves ejaculatory force to enjoy enhanced pleasure in the bed, low sexual desire can take a sigh of relief as a great alternative of generic pills are in general two third of the charge of acknowledged pills. cialis generic viagra
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) describes the state of U.S. defenses as “a force-planning construct that is woefully inadequate for the global and everyday demands of wartime and peacetime… Gone is any plan that foresees conflict taking longer than one year in duration or any contingency with a whiff of stability operations, long-term counterinsurgency or counter-insurrection, or nation building of the type seen in Iraq and Afghanistan… After six years of budget cuts and operational shifts, hard choices have in many cases turned into stupid or bad ones. Fewer resources and the lack of bipartisan consensus in favor of a strong defense have forced commanders and planners across services to accept previously unthinkable risks as they pick and choose which portions of the national defense strategy to implement… Unmentioned is that the risk to the force grows each passing year. It is now at crisis levels and promises unnecessarily longer wars, higher numbers of wounded or killed in action, and outright potential for mission failure.”

Defense One notes that it’s not just manpower and hardware that’s the problem. America is losing its lead in technology as well. “The Pentagon is worried that rivals are developing their capabilities faster than the U.S. is rolling out new ones. The edge is shrinking.”

The Heritage Foundation’s report on U.S. military strength presents a worrisome picture of an understrength military. “The common theme across the services and the U.S. nuclear enterprise is one of force degradation resulting from many years of underinvestment, poor execution of modernization programs, and the negative effects of budget sequestration (cuts in funding) on readiness and capacity. While the military has been heavily engaged in operations, primarily in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, since September 11, 2001, experience is both ephemeral and context-sensitive. Valuable combat experience is lost over time as the service members who individually gained experience leave the force, and it maintains direct relevance only for future operations of a similar type (e.g., counterinsurgency operations in Iraq are fundamentally different from major conventional operations against a state like Iran or China). Thus, although the current Joint Force is experienced in some types of operations, it is still aged and shrinking in its capacity for operations.”

Tomorrow: The report breaks down the needs of each armed service branch.

Tags condition of U.S. military, defense spending, military threats

Quick Analysis

Delusional Thinking in Foreign Affairs

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date July 26, 2016

There is little so unproductive, and frequently dangerous, as the power of a delusion that has taken such a strong hold that reality never has the opportunity to intrude. When government adopts delusional policies, the potential danger is enormous. When the press shares the delusion, the prospect of a reasonable discussion to allow the facts to come to light is only a faint prospect.

Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was a dark and depressing analysis of the current status of the United States. Unfortunately, it also happened to be accurate. While there can certainly be a debate about the best way to address the challenges facing the nation, the unsavory truth is that America has not been in worse condition since before the middle of the last century. To avoid admitting that is to ignore reality.

Abroad, the unprecedented military power of the Russian-Chinese alliance presents the greatest threat the nation has ever faced. At home, the continuing descent of the middle class, the failure of the war on poverty, crumbling infrastructure, and the stunning downturn in race relations all demand a harshly honest examination, and significant and viable responses.

Today’s review looks at foreign affairs.

It is deeply disturbing that Obama continues to maintain that the world is in generally good order. During his remarks at last week’s Global Development Summit, the President stated: “it is worth reminding ourselves of how lucky we are to be living in the most peaceful, most prosperous, most progressive era in human history…the world has achieved incredible advances in development and human dignity… the world has never been less violent, healthier, better educated, more tolerant, with more opportunity for more people…” As Debra Heine of PJ Media points out, this isn’t the first time the President has delivered an extremely optimistic—and unrealistic– viewpoint. Almost exactly two years ago, he made a virtually identical statement: “The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been.”

To an extent, Mr. Obama is correct. Since the adoption of the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1787, human rights have been on an upward trajectory. Advances in science, as well as the widespread acceptance of capitalist economics, and the military power first of the British then the United States navies (which the President at times appears profoundly uncomfortable with) to safeguard commerce have provided more opportunities for more people than ever before.

But the harsh truth is that all those wonderful attributes are in immediate and significant danger of quickly being swept away, facts the White House continues to ignore. Indeed, the U.S. Administration has taken steps which actually diminish those accomplishments.

Personal safety as well as the upward thrust of human rights and gender equality has been severely blunted by Islamic extremism, which the current administration finds hard to discuss, let alone address. Headline Politics notes: “It’s an understatement to call President Obama ‘delusional’ when it comes to his ISIS non-strategy. After all, the man once referred to them as the ‘JV team’ and twice said that he had no working plan to defeat the terrorist group, after he had already introduced a plan that didn’t work.”

Chronic male http://davidfraymusic.com/events/macedonia-philharmonic-golden-fresh-hands/ soft viagra sexual weakness is a classical symptom of erectile disorder (ED), normally known as impotence. whilst a man is not able to enjoy erection hard sufficient for completing the act of sexual sex, he’s often identified with ED. Lifestyle: Poor eating habits, lack of buy sildenafil sleep, sedentary lifestyle and stress make for a deadly cocktail and could affect your fertility greatly. These drugs keep a compound called phosphodiesterase sort 5 (Pde5) breaks down cgmp forestalling blood stream into the penis, which causes misfortune of an erection. cialis pharmacy 20mg hinder the activity of Pde5 enzyme this efficient anti-impotency generic medicine reintegrates the smooth blood flow throughout the body. Whenever it comes to sexual health related products, particular wikipedia reference ordering viagra from india men’s and women’s health related drugs are also provided by these stores. From the deserts of the Middle East to the Jungles of Africa, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the cities of the world, freedom from violence, and the safety of women to share equal rights have been jeopardized as never before. The evidence is extensive, growing, and omnipresent. Almost every month brings another attack resulting in mass civilian casualties, and authorities appear to be floundering in seeking a means to stop the threat. Adherents of Sharia, which harshly speaks of denying rights to non-Muslims, Muslims who do not conform with extremist orthodoxy, and all women, are intent on spreading that philosophy across the planet.

But the Obama Administration adheres to its delusion, and the media harshly attacks those that seek to bring a realistic view to the forefront. The one medium that has provided the greatest forum for exposing atrocities against human rights, the internet, is scheduled, thanks to the President’s own initiative, to be opened to censorship by some of the very nations that are engaging in these acts.

The Crisis that the White House Pretends Doesn’t Exist

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date March 23, 2016

From one end of the globe to the other, powers overtly unfriendly to the United States and its allies are substantially and rapidly building their military might. It is a clear indication that the White House policy of unilateral reduction in defense spending combined with appeasement diplomacy has been a dismal failure.

North Korea has placed its nuclear arsenal on “standby,” and Kim Jong Un has ordered his substantial armed forces into a “pre-emptive attack mode,” according to reports by the Korean Central News Agency first as reported by the Financial Times.

In February, the White House stated, in response to North Korea’s recent nuclear threat, that:

“This is a highly provocative act that, following its December 12 ballistic missile launch, undermines regional stability, violates North Korea’s obligations under numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, contravenes its commitments under the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, and increases the risk of proliferation. North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs constitute a threat to U.S. national security and to international peace and security. The United States remains vigilant in the face of North Korean provocations and steadfast in our defense commitments to allies in the region…The danger posed by North Korea’s threatening activities warrants further swift and credible action by the international community. The United States will also continue to take steps necessary to defend ourselves and our allies. We will strengthen close coordination with allies and partners and work with our Six-Party partners, the United Nations Security Council, and other UN member states to pursue firm action.”

The President’s analysis of the situation was correct, and his plans to increase cooperation with regional allies is appropriate. However, there is a problem with the approach: The United States lacks the actual power-in-being to actually address the crisis. The slashing of the defense budget during the course of the Obama Administration, and the Oval Office decision not to have an armed forces capable of fighting a two-front war renders his response little more than words. Sanctions have failed to halt North Korea’s belligerence or nuclear progress in the past and there is no reason to assume they will do so in the future.

The President speaks of a “pivot” to Asia, which if it were real, could give Pyongyang pause. But the pivot is just verbiage with nothing much behind it. The diminished U.S. Navy, at less than half the strength it posed in 1990 and at its smallest level since World War I, doesn’t intimidate North Korea which rests with the Chinese sphere of influence. China already has more submarines than the U.S., along with greater regional forces and a growing bluewater fleet that will outnumber America’s by 2020.
viagra 100mg tablet Sildenafil contained in medications such as malegra inhibits the working of c-GMP (cyclic guanosine monophosphate). Jacobson “I function closely with each discount online viagra http://deeprootsmag.org/page/70/?Itemid=cebbqqbwoe and every affected person to know their signs or symptoms and expectations and use a balance of bioidentical hormones, herbals and nutritional supplements, to achieve optimal symptom reduction.” AgeMD is definitely an exclusive national network of bioidentical hormone medical professionals who specialize in bioidentical hormone remedy and age linked disease. The least period estimated of getting the desired cheap cialis online. It deeprootsmag.org purchase viagra in uk has got Sildenafil citrate inside it which makes sure that any course chosen meets your needs.
There is another factor, as well. The White House’s practice of tough words followed by a lack of action demonstrates that it lacks the willpower to follow through. Think of the abandoned Red Line in Syria. The failure to avenge the Benghazi attack. The weak response to Russia’s Ukrainian invasion. The lack of action in response to Moscow’s growing presence in the Western Hemisphere. The failure to even lodge a diplomatic protest in response to Beijing’s invasion of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone.

On the other side of the Eurasian landmass, Iran has conducted number of forbidden ballistic missile tests, openly making mockery of the nuclear weapons agreement before the ink has even dried on the document. The Iranians are fully aware that North Korea cut a deal with President Clinton in the 1990’s in which $4 billion in aid was provided in response to Pyongyang’s solemn promise not to build nukes. President Clinton did nothing in response to the violation, just as President Obama has no credible plans to respond to Tehran’s violation.

Indeed, Mr. Obama’s response to military provocations has been more appeasement. His response to Russia’s return to cold war era bases in Cuba was, strangely, to restore diplomatic relations with Havana. He has done nothing in response to Moscow’s move to use Nicaragua as a refueling base for its nuclear Tupolev bombers.

The President doesn’t even discuss the fact that Russia, after signing the New Start treaty in 2009, now, for the first time in history, has become the world’s preeminent nuclear power. The skyrocketing growth of China’s military is also a non-topic in the Oval office.

Mr. Obama is well known for his absolute refusal to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism.” Unfortunately, his flight from reality also includes every threat to the safety of the United States, as well. In the past, some presidents have emphasized national security more than others. However, we have never before had a Commander in Chief who completely neglects the entire topic.

Tags Iran, military threats, North Korea, nuclear proliferation, Obama's national security policy, Red Line, terrorism

Quick Analysis

The Greatest Threat to the USA

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date February 3, 2016

There can be little doubt (except, perhaps, in the White House) that terrorism poses an immediate, deadly, and significant threat to the safety of the American people. However, there is an even more dangerous peril facing the nation.

As previously noted by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, American defense policy remains trapped in a time warp assumption that the potential of massive scale, nation vs. nation warfare, including the use of extensive conventional forces as well as nuclear weapons ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, that assumption couldn’t be more incorrect. The extraordinary military buildup, and accompanying aggressiveness, of Russia and China, and the alliance of those two great powers together with Iran and North Korea pose perhaps the greatest threat to the United States since the British burned the White House during the 1812 War. The problem is magnified by the decline in American military power, which is both increasingly outdated, underfunded, and basically half the strength it possessed a quarter century ago

While the Executive Branch downplays the problem, Congressional researchers are documenting the challenge. A newly released study by the Congressional Research Service, “A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense,” addresses it. The New York Analysis has reviewed the documented, and excerpts key portions of it. Our review concludes tomorrow.

A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense

World events since late 2013 have led some observers to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the last 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different strategic situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition and challenges to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.

…Russia’s seizure and annexation of Crimea, as well as subsequent Russian actions in eastern Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, have already led to a renewed focus among policymakers on U.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe, and on how to counter Russia’s so-called hybrid warfare tactics.

China’s actions in the East and South China Seas have prompted a focus among policymakers on how to counter China’s so-called salami-slicing tactics in those areas.

A shift in the international security environment may also be generating implications for areas such as nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, maintaining technological superiority in conventional weapons, defense acquisition policy, submarines and antisubmarine warfare, and DOD reliance on Russian-made components.

Background Shift in International Security Environment: Overview

The United States must come to grips with a new security environment as surging powers like Russia and China challenge American power, said Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work. “Great power competition has returned…Russia is now a resurgent great power and I would argue that its long term prospects are unclear. China is a rising great power. Well, that requires us to start thinking more globally and more in terms of competition than we have in the past 25 years… Both Russia and China are challenging the order that has been prevalent since the end of World War II…

The New Situation

Observers who conclude that the international security environment has shifted to a new strategic situation generally view the new period not as a bipolar situation (like the Cold War) or a unipolar situation (like the post-Cold War era), but as a multipolar situation characterized by renewed competition among three major world powers—the United States, China, and Russia. Other emerging characteristics of the new international security situation as viewed by these observers include the following:

renewed ideological competition, this time against 21st -century forms of authoritarianism in Russia, China, and other countries;
the promotion in China and Russia through their state-controlled media of nationalistic historical narratives emphasizing assertions of prior humiliation or victimization by Western powers, and the use of those narratives to support revanchist or irredentist foreign policy aims;
the use by Russia and China of new forms of aggressive or assertive military and paramilitary operations—called hybrid warfare or ambiguous warfare, among other terms, in the case of Russia’s actions, and called salami-slicing tactics or gray-zone warfare, among other terms, in the case of China’s actions—to gain greater degrees of control of areas on their peripheries;
challenges by Russia and China to key elements of the U.S.-led international order, including the principle that force or threat of force should not be used as a routine or first-resort measure for settling disputes between countries, and the principle of freedom of the seas (i.e., that the world’s oceans are to be treated as an international commons); and
additional features alongside those listed above, including:
continued regional security challenges from countries such as Iran and North Korea;
a continuation of the post-Cold War era’s focus (at least from a U.S. perspective) on countering transnational terrorist organizations that have emerged as significant non-state actors (now including the Islamic State organization, among other groups); and
weak or failed states, and resulting weakly governed or ungoverned areas that can contribute to the emergence of (or serve as base areas or sanctuaries for) non-state actors, and become potential locations of intervention by stronger states, including major powers.

The main objective of this course is to vary your viagra no prescription usa approach to doing business. deeprootsmag.org generic viagra for sale Leafy Green Veggies Spinach, beans, kale, celery, turnip are some of the green leafy veggies that increase the quantity of sperm within a man’s semen. As many think that sexual health illnesses are caused mostly by physical factors, it is a problem that has to be dealt with by using educated therapy, reading person-assist courses along with furthermore a cheap brand viagra superb previous discuss through one’s creator. Causes of weak erection in men include reduced purchase levitra online http://deeprootsmag.org/category/departments/native-american-news/?feedsort=rand blood supply to the male organ.

The Report Continues Tomorrow

Tags A Shift in the International Security Environment, China, military threats, National Security, Russia

Quick Analysis

U.S. Not as Safe as President Claims

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date February 1, 2016

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, speaking to the National Press Club on January 13, delivered a fact-filled rebuke to President Obama’s State of the Union comments that the U.S. has become safer and stronger. We have excerpted his key points:

Too many of us tend to assume that it is the Executive’s job to decide what we need to defend the country, and then send the bill to Congress, expecting us to salute and write the check. That is not what Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says. It says that it is Congress’s duty to “raise and support, provide and maintain, make rules for the government and regulation of” the military forces of the United States. …

Some of the calls we have made in the last few years in disagreeing with the Administration’s requests, such as retaining an aircraft carrier, keeping the A-10, keeping both the U-2 and Global Hawk when we have a severe ISR shortage, look pretty good in hindsight.

Today, we have to make those judgment calls within limited budgets and in the most complex, difficult national security environment our nation has ever faced. Just think for a moment about the last two weeks or so: Escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran have brought the Mideast closer to open sectarian conflict than it has been in many years; North Korea tests another nuclear device as it continues to develop more advanced missiles and seems less concerned about world opinion than ever; Reports indicate Russia took down the power grid in parts of Ukraine over the holidays; A British film crew came back from Raqqa with evidence that ISIS is vigorously pursuing chemical weapons, heatseeking missiles that can shoot down aircraft, and remote-controlled vehicles; More evidence is made public of ISIS operatives already inside the United States and Europe working to carry out further attacks; And, China lands aircraft on islands it has constructed in South China Sea.

Not to mention Iran shooting missiles at U.S. ships and yesterday detaining 10 American sailors and their boats. If we look back just a few weeks more, we read about a Russian nuclear torpedo able to devastate coastal areas. And Iranian hackers infiltrating the control system of a small dam less than 20 miles from New York City, while it was also attacking the websites of U.S. banks. And about the FBI stopping four attempts in the past five years by Russian gangs to sell radioactive material to “Middle Eastern extremists.”

Who knows what the next two weeks or two months of 2016 will hold? The world is more dangerous today than it was in 2009. Despite the President’s claim…that is reality. But, it is certainly unlikely that the Obama Administration will do anything in its last year to change that situation or to alter that trajectory…

No country is better positioned to continue being one of “history’s winners” than the U.S. But we cannot assume that it will be so; we have to make deliberate decisions to ensure that we are still able to be this unique force for good in the world. For Congress, that means deciding to provide the funding needed to defend the country, deciding what capability and authorities we need, and overseeing the activities of the Executive Branch.

BUDGET ISSUES

The Obama administration argues that a ship today is more capable than one twenty years ago. Generally, that is true, but a ship can still only be at one place at a time, and we need enough of them to protect against the threats all around the world. We do not have enough of them today. Building a strong military requires money. Last fall’s budget agreement does not provide enough money for defense, but I agreed with those who believed that it was better to accept less than is required in order to be assured that the funds will be there.

After the budget brinkmanship of the Obama years, budget stability, even for just two years, counts for a lot. So I am disturbed at rumors that the Administration may not keep to the agreement in its budget submission. The agreement was for FY ’17 that $573 billion would be available to meet base defense requirements and the OCO account would receive no less than $59 billion with the exact amount dependent on the world situation. That agreement was reached more than two weeks before the Paris attacks, and the pace of our military operations has only increased since then.

Rather than asking for more money to cover the higher operational costs, the Administration is looking at cutting the base funding to pay for those OCO needs. That cuts people, weapons, research. Guaranteeing a minimum level of defense spending was the key to getting last year’s budget agreement. The terms were clear to everyone; and everyone should stick to it. At the same time, our Committee will not relent in our continuing oversight of how that money is spent. Waste and inefficiency drain military strength and erode political support, so in addition to vigorous oversight, we put a high priority on reform, which I will discuss more in a moment. Of course, what we spend that money on is crucial, which brings me to capabilities. While ensuring that our service men and women have the best weapons and equipment for today’s operations, we also have to move rapidly to develop and field the capability they will need tomorrow. I am paying particular attention to the third offset efforts, cyber, modernizing our nuclear deterrent, and special operations forces.

The President said last night that “no nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin.” And that has been true for a long time. Unfortunately, that is changing…

TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES

Deputy Secretary Work and Vice Chairman Selva are advancing a focused push, known as the Third Offset, to ensure that no state dares take on America in the future…no one should be under the illusion that a handful of technological breakthroughs, even if they come, can create the unchallenged position we have enjoyed in the past. Technology changes too quickly; information moves too fast; and the threats are too diverse. Bigger change is required.

cyber is a new domain of warfare, where technology development is not the most pressing need, but organizations, doctrine, and authorities are. The challenges here are not just for the military, but we have to have the ability to fight and win in cyberspace. The Committee will be pushing on issues related to people, organization, and how we fight in cyberspace to close the gap between the threats we face and the laws and policies we employ to deal with it.

Issues in A Relationship Men find difficulty to take a helping hand discount viagra of Kamagra tablets due to their pill swallowing phobia. Normally the online course demands the student to start and complete two hours of going to bed. levitra uk respitecaresa.org Mast Mood oil is developed using herbal ingredients like Tulsi, Jawadi Kasturi, Jaiphal, Javitri, Dalchini, Ashwagandha, Kapur, Nirgundi, Samudra Phal, Sona discount viagra Patha, and Buleylu oil. cialis generic usa The reasons are the excessive intake or alcohol, the intake of narcotic drug, the process of aging etc. are the main reasons for erectile dysfunction. NUCLEAR FORCES

It may seem odd to include nuclear deterrent among the top capabilities that demand our attention for the future. But as we have seen over the past week, nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are spreading. Our own nuclear deterrent is the foundation of all of our other defense efforts. Unfortunately, our warheads and delivery systems have all been neglected and are aging out at about the same time. We have to put the resources, which studies show would never be more than 5% of the defense budget, and also the attention and willpower to ensuring that we will have an effective nuclear deterrent for today and tomorrow’s world, not yesterday’s.

SPECIAL FORCES

The world, including our enemies, has gotten a look at the enormous capability provided by our Special Operations Forces. I have no doubt that they will be even more crucial in the future. But, there is a temptation, as we have seen in other nations, to use SOF forces in just about all situations, and that can lead to losing some of their unique capability…

While the U.S. has always needed a military strong enough to protect us from the threats of the day, the current situation is unlike any other we have faced. For we must have the military capability to protect us from an enormous array of threats all at once, as well as for the unexpected.

PEOPLE

The most important component of our defense is our people. We can never relax our efforts to ensure that the nation’s security continues to have the benefit of the best and brightest our country can produce. Last year, we followed many of the recommendations of the Military Retirement and Modernization Commission, including instituting a new retirement system. This year, under the able leadership of Subcommittee Chairman/General/Doctor Joe Heck, we are focusing on health care. Year after year, the Administration has proposed raising Tricare fees and copays on service members. Simply taking more money out of their pockets is not reform.

AQUISITIONS

Last year, we made a good start on improving the way DOD acquires goods and services, focusing on the acquisition workforce, acquisition strategies for each program, and rebalancing the responsibilities between the Services and DOD. This year, we will build on those reforms… One goal I have is to encourage more experimentation and prototyping. Studying military innovations of the past leads to the clear conclusion that experimentation was the heart of those successes. It encourages innovative thinking not only to develop technology but in how it is used. It helps ensure there is mature technology before large scale production begins. It reduces the odds that large sums will be invested in a program that gets canceled…

ORGANIZATION

Another key area of reform is organizational. We have to ensure that our organizational structure inside the Pentagon and beyond fits today’s world…The first step in dealing with sluggish bureaucracy is simplification, but I acknowledge, we have a long way to go…The Defense Business Board says that about half of all uniformed personnel serve on staffs that spend most of their time going to meetings and responding to tasks from the hundreds of offices throughout the DOD, including the 17 independent agencies, 9 unified commands, 250 joint task forces. We have much more to do to de-layer and simplify……

INTELLIGENCE

Having served on the House Intelligence Committee for more than 10 years and continuing to sit in on its briefings, as well as the briefings our Committee receives, I have no doubt that just at the time we face more diverse terrorist and other kinds of threats than ever before, we know less about what are adversaries are planning — certainly less than we did at the beginning of the Obama Administration. Part of the reason is evolution of technology; part of the reason is leaks that tell the world what we do and how we do it; part of the reason is the restrictions we place on ourselves unnecessarily. For example, PPD-28 gives foreign intelligence targets essentially the same rights as American citizens, overriding instructions given to the IC by every President since Ronald Reagan. We are asking more of our intelligence professionals than ever before and yet they have to operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Our nation is more vulnerable as a result.

MICROMANAGEMENT

Finally, I mentioned earlier that it is unlikely for the Obama Administration to do anything over this coming year to significantly improve the perilous situation in which we find ourselves…The White House imposes rules of engagement upon our men and women fighting in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan that make it harder for them to succeed in their mission and, in some cases, actually increases the danger to their lives. In addition, there is an unprecedented degree of micromanagement from National Security Council staffers – not only of the top management in DOD, but even of 8 military service members in the field….

Tags defense budget, military threats, National Security, State of the Union

Quick Analysis

Recognizing the Russian Threat

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date May 6, 2015

As reports of Russian nuclear bombers entering Alaskan air space and Russian submarines intruding into the waters of European nations continue to increase, many have wondered why military leaders have remained relatively silent.

That’s beginning to change. U.S. General Philip M. Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, has on two separate recent occasions outlined his growing concern over Moscow’s growing military prowess and aggressiveness. Speaking before the Atlantic Council, he described Moscow’s “revanchist” attitude:

“Russia’s actions against Ukraine since last year have signaled “a clear end of what I see as two decades of clear Russian struggle over security policy…” According to the Atlantic Council, Russia is now on a far different course that shifts the relationship between Russia and the West from strategic cooperation to one of strategic competition. This is not a temporary aberration, but the new norm….This is a Russia that recognizes strength and sees weakness as an opportunity.’

Breedlove believes that “Russia is blatantly challenging the rules and principles that have been the bedrock of European security for decades. The challenge is global, not regional, and enduring, not temporary. Russian aggression is clearly visible in its illegal occupation of Crimea, and in its continued operations in eastern Ukraine. But the crisis in Ukraine is about more than just Ukraine. Russian activities are destabilizing neighboring states, and the region as a whole…and Russia’s illegal actions are pushing instability closer to the boundaries of NATO.

You’ve already had Iran and Iraq, Y2K, and September 11th; and you will be living inside a globe that has changed permanently. online viagra mastercard http://davidfraymusic.com/events/davies-symphony-hall-san-francisco/ This condition can be learn the facts here now purchase cialis on line either a permanent impotence or even natural sexual desire enhancers you may use. The website values the financial information of the buyer therefore buy viagra online no orders are taken by phone. Just like the kamagra effervescent tablets you can also check out viagra canada cost for the kamagra oral jelly to treat it. “We cannot be fully certain what Russia will do next, and we cannot fully grasp Putin’s intent. What we can do is learn from his actions… And what we see suggests growing Russian capabilities, significant military modernization, and ambitious strategic intent.

“We also know that Putin responds to strength, and seeks opportunities in weakness. We must strengthen our deterrence in order to manage his opportunistic confidence…”

As Russia has increased its military capability, the West has reduced its’ capabilities. One area outlined by Breedlove concerns intelligence assets. “Since the end of the Cold War, our nation’s community of Russian area experts has shrunk considerably, and intelligence assets of all kinds have been shifted to the wars we’ve been fighting or to understanding potential future threats.

Russian military operations over the past year, in Ukraine and in the region more broadly, have underscored that there are critical gaps in our collection and analysis. Some Russian military exercises have caught us by surprise…”

Tags General Breedlove, military threats, Putin, Russia, Ukraine

Quick Analysis

U.S. faces most serious military peril since War of 1812

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date March 18, 2015

The United States is in more peril from military threats than at any time since the British burned the White House in the War of 1812. This is the result of both the de-funding of the armed forces, and the extraordinary threats from Russia, China, and other aggressive powers.

According to the Government Accountability Office,

“Over the past year, the overall size of DOD’s major defense acquisition program portfolio decreased, from 80 programs to 78, while the estimated cost has decreased by $7.6 billion. The size and cost of the portfolio is currently the lowest in a decade.”

While Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea continue to engage in massive arms buildups, the United States continues to act as if threats are decreasing. A recent article by the House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Randy Forbes and the American Enterprise Institutes’ Jim Talent, a former U.S. Senator, published in Real Clear Defense , outlined the critical state of the military.

“-Under sequestration, the Army will be cut to 420,000 soldiers, its smallest size since 1941. Training will be reduced for most units to only platoon and company-level exercises. Modernization will be reduced, forcing the service to rely on equipment purchased during the Reagan build-up;

“-Today’s Air Force inventory of fighters, bombers, among others, is the oldest and smallest in the history of the service. Less than half of the service’s combat squadrons are fully ready today. Under the full impact of sequestration, readiness will plummet and the number of fighter, bomber and surveillance units will be reduced again by half. Also affected will be the Air Force’s ability to provide strike, close-air support and surveillance to protect a more vulnerable smaller army;
Caverta is dark-red prescription viagra triangular tablet and Kamagra is one of the best answers to it. As the ingredients of these pills work within 20-30 minutes of their consumption and work by enhancing the metabolic process, increasing fiber content in the body, and helping the body build and regenerate muscle at a much lower cost. viagra properien http://davidfraymusic.com/events/theatre-des-champs-elysees-paris/ Regular intake of viagra cheapest the drug as per the requirement of the patients. They will treat their patient in an effective way so that the male viagra for women uk reproductive system can receive plenty of blood to cause an erection.
“- The size of the fleet will shrink, per the Chief of Naval Operations, to a regional force of about 250 ships, possibly lower. By 2020, US naval forces assigned to the Western Pacific will total only one-third to one-fourth of the size of China’s growing modern fleet which will be between 325 to 350 ships. Moreover, the ability to reinforce that diminished fleet, as measured by the Navy’s contingency response force, will continue to decline as readiness continues to decline;

“- The Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on February 26 that one half of his non-deployed units suffer from shortfalls in personnel, equipment and training under the current limited impact of sequestration. The full impact of sequestration, he explained, would force the Marine Corps “to divest ourselves of people …or to stop training.”

According to a National Defense Panel Review

“…the defense budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, coupled with the additional cuts and constraints on defense management under the law’s sequestration provision, constitute a serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States. Not only have they caused significant investment shortfalls in U.S. military readiness and both present and future capabilities, they have prompted our current and potential allies and adversaries to question our commitment and resolve. Unless reversed, these shortfalls will lead to a high risk force in the near future. That in turn will lead to an America that is not only less secure but also far less prosperous. In this sense, these cuts are ultimately self-defeating. The effectiveness of America’s other tools for global influence, such as diplomacy and economic engagement, are critically intertwined with and dependent upon the perceived strength, presence, and commitment of U.S. … the capabilities and capacities rightly called for in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review… clearly exceed the budget resources made available …. This gap is disturbing if not dangerous in light of the fact that global threats and challenges are rising, including a troubling pattern of territorial assertiveness and regional intimidation on China’s part, the recent aggression of Russia in Ukraine, nuclear proliferation on the part of North Korea and Iran, a serious insurgency in Iraq that both reflects and fuels the broader sectarian conflicts in the region, the civil war in Syria, and civil strife in the larger Middle East and throughout Africa.”

Both the White House and the media continue to ignore this most dire of all crises facing the nation. The consequences will be inevitably grave.

Tags military threats, pentagon budget, shrinking armed forces, U.S. defense